During the talks of a U.S. war on Syria, members of the U.S. military tweeted pictures of themselves in uniform holding hand-lettered signs in front of their faces declaring they will not fight in Syria’s civil war only to benefit the al-Qaeda jihadists. (See “U.S. soldiers in open rebellion against Obama’s war in Syria,” Sept 3, 2013.)

Then there’s the POS’s war against Christians in the U.S. military. See, for example,

More seriously still, there are signs that the POS is systematically purging the military command.

In the three months after the 9/11 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya (which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stephens), five senior U.S. military officers were purged:

Ostensibly, Petraeus’ “retirement” and Allen’s suspended promotion were due to both men’s moral conduct. But surely we are not so naive as to think that Petraeus and Allen are the only U.S. military officers who’ve ever committed adultery or written flirtatious email. As for Ham’s “retirement” and Gaouette’s “temporary re-assignment” (reassignment to what?), there is not even a whisper that either man’s morals or personal conduct is at issue.

The dismissal of Gen. James Mattisis equally, if not more, suspicious. Having served in the U.S. military for 40 years and widely revered by rank-and-file Marines for his blunt talk and leadership, Mattis was the head of the most important command of the entire U.S. military — that of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM).But the good general was told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.

Writing for Foreign Policy on Jan. 18, 2013, self-described “fan of President Obama” Thomas E. Ricks claims that the “word on the national security street is that General James Mattis was being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command” because he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way” on the Obama regime’s policy toward Iran.

It is in the above context that news of the dismissal of yet another senior military officer should be understood.

USAF Major General Michael J. Carey

The U.S. Air Force reports (courtesy Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs) that on Oct. 11, 2013, Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, relieved Maj. Gen. Michael Carey from command of 20th Air Forcedue to a loss of trust and confidence in his leadership and judgment.

The report says:

Kowalski made his decision based on information from an Inspector General investigation into Carey’s behavior during a temporary duty assignment. The allegations are not related to operational readiness or the inspection results of any 20th AF unit, nor do they involve sexual misconduct.

“20th AF continues to execute its mission of around-the-clock nuclear deterrence in a safe, secure and effective manner,’ Kowalski said. ‘It’s unfortunate that I’ve had to relieve an officer who’s had an otherwise distinctive career spanning 35 years of commendable service.”

Headquartered at F. E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., 20th AF is responsible for the nation’s three intercontinental ballistic missile wings. It has dual responsibilities to AFGSC and U.S. Strategic Command. As the missile Numbered Air Force for AFGSC, 20th AF maintains and operates the nation’s ICBM force.Designated as STRATCOM’s Task Force 214, the command provides on-alert, combat ready ICBMs to the President.

Within two months after the Benghazi attack, four senior U.S. military officers were purged:

Gen. Carter Ham, on October 18.

Adm. Charles Gaouette, on October 27.

Gen. David Petraeus, on November 9.

Gen. John Allen, on November 13.

Ostensibly, Petraeus’ “retirement” and Allen’s suspended promotion are due to both men’s moral conduct. But surely we are not so naive as to think that Petraeus and Allen are the only U.S. military officers who’ve ever committed adultery or written flirtatious email. As for Ham’s “retirement” and Gaouette’s “temporary re-assignment” (reassignment to what?), there is not even a whisper that either man’s morals or personal conduct is at issue.

So what should we make of all this? Is it all just coincidence or something more sinister?

Ann Barnhardt, in her blog of Nov. 13, 2012, didn’t hesitate to call the purges, Obama’s “night of the long knives” — a reference to the last step in Hitler’s quest for total, dictatorial power. On June 30, 1934, the Fuhrer purged the German military of any factions that were in any way autonomous and not 100% loyal to him.

Now add to the above list of four, Marine Corps General James Mattis (above), who has served in the U.S. military for 40 years and is widely revered by rank-and-file Marines for his blunt talk and leadership.

Three weeks after the purge of Gen. Allen came news that four-star Gen. Mattis was told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned, in March 2013, that is, this month. On Dec. 6, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that Mattis would be replaced by Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the vice chief of staff for the Army, subject of course to Senate confirmation.

Gen. James Mattis, 62, is only the head of the most important command of the entire U.S. military — that of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM).

The United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) is a theater-level Unified Combatant Command of the U.S. Department of Defense, established in 1983. Its area of responsibility includes countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq. CENTCOM has been the main American presence in many military operations, including the Persian Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and the Iraq War. Forces from CENTCOM currently are deployed primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan in combat roles and have bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Pakistan, and central Asia in support roles.

Writing for Foreign Policy on Jan. 18, 2013, self-described “fan of President Obama” Thomas E. Ricks claims that the “word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command” because he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way” on the Obama regime’s policy toward Iran.

Reportedly, “tough-minded realist “Mattis “pushed the civilians … hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran” with questions such as: What do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf?

But Mattis’ questions and plea for prudence were “not welcomed” by the White House.

Obama-fan Thomas Ricks points out that, in dismissing Gen. Mattis, “The message the Obama Administration is sending, intentionally or not, is that it doesn’t like tough, smart, skeptical generals who speak candidly to their civilian superiors. In fact, that is exactly what it (and every administration) should want. Had we had more back in 2003, we might not have made the colossal mistake of invading Iraq. […] But I am at the point where I don’t trust his national security team. They strike me as politicized, defensive and narrow. These are people who will not recognize it when they screw up, and will treat as enemies anyone who tells them they are doing that. And that is how things like Vietnam get repeated.”

Ricks also warns that the Obama regime “now have dissed the two Marine generals who are culture heroes in today’s Corps: Mattis and Anthony Zinni. The Marines have long memories.”

There’s a great item on The Roycroft Report about the high cost of Obama’s war in Libya.

April 9, 2011 – During his questioning of Gen. Carter Ham at the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., stated that as of this past Monday, the U.S. has spent $608 million on the Libyan crisis.